You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Ever-truthful (never lying or misleading; which is handy), in accents ranging freely from big bangs to whispers (which can be tricky), Nature counsels us in many ways and sometimes nicely: yet just one grammar, mathematics, governs all her languages. So begins a prologue to her lesson here: Nature in truth responding to FQXi's (2014) theme -- Trick or truth: the mysterious connection between physics and mathematics -- via that tricky Bell-v-Einstein context. First uniting classical and quantum experiments on bosons and fermions under just one language, Nature reveals neglected laws: laws that settle Bell-v-Einstein in Einstein's favour and quietly shape the realistic philosophy of most working scientists and their concept of spacetime. Seeking to keep pace with her we proceed as follows: 1-Truth, 2-Analysis, 3-Conclusions, 4-Appendix A (Language), 5-References, 6-Technical-endnotes. With Nature presenting maths as the best logic, and little more than undergraduate maths required, newcomers best begin with Appendix A -- especially the modelling in Table A1 -- questions, critical comments, error-corrections, etc., being very welcome here.

Author Bio

Gordon Watson -- BE(Hons) UNSW; an engineer with history of success across many disciplines -- holds maths to be the best logic: hence his special interest in bringing mathematics to bear on perplexing problems in any field. Supporting Einstein's local-causality over Bellian nonlocality, his essay -- "Can this description of physical reality be considered complete?" -- was a lucky finalist at FQXi in 2013.

PS: Friendly reminder: Please start the discussion via this thread or a New Post -- and NOT the one above -- knowing that questions, critical comments ++ are welcome here. Thank you; Gordon Watson

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 11:30 GMT

Dear Gordon,

I just read your interesting contribution. As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech.

I just read your interesting contribution. As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech.

I have gently followed the essay and find the logic impeccable. I do not hesitate that you throw a challenge to those claiming that QM is not a locally causal theory to fault the math you have used, if they can.

Someone I will be willing to act as a referee is Armin Shirazi, if he is equally willing. Others like Peter Jackson and Eugene Klingmann are also into this but I think they will be more interested in furthering their own theories than critically reviewing your math.

In your statement, "So with all results here in full accord with special relativity (SR), quantum mechanics (QM) and experiment, a correct reconnection between maths and physics in Bell-v-Einstein follows: ,there are no superluminal signals nor action-at-a-distance under CLR. “The direct causes (and effects) of events are nearby, and even the indirect causes (and effects) are no further away than permitted by the velocity of light,” Bell (2004:239)."

The only aspect of SR that is in full accord with Truthful Mathematics is that which forbids influences travelling instantaneously between Alice and Bob. You may be an adherent of SR but I am not. This is however, outside the focus of this topic. We can do battle elsewhere. At your spare time, reading Armin Shirazi's questioning whether Photons exist (although he is himself an adherent of SR), Herbert Dingle and my own opinion, for whatever it is worth may shake your faith a little and reduce your desire that things be 'in full accord' with SR.

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene … there's work to be done.

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene … there's work to be done.

2. The symbols thus stand as an elementary qualifying test: which I considered OK, given the mathematical nature of the theme and the opportunities here to learn via questions.

3. I've posted at Armin's Forum and a nice challenging exchange has begun. I hope you might join in?

3. Re SR, note that I rely (only) on the only aspect of SR that you endorse: that which forbids influences travelling instantaneously between Alice and Bob.

4. I am interested in discussions with SR dissidents sometime; for the moment I happily rely on Armin's adherence to SR: thus SR does not distract from us each clarifying the original components in our work. And given my limited need from SR, I doubt I'll be led astray.

5. I am very happy to continue the dialectic in your Forum; as is young Hugh. He has a proof that a point CANNOT perish. When I said your point had extension, he said that's OK and asked its shape.

I will be asking Armin directly to fault the math in your essay. That is, if he can.

Your limited need from SR is just fine. It will not remove from the proof you have put forward showing Einstein was right and Bell was wrong.

Regarding what Hugh asked, can an extended point outlive the Universe itself? Just food for thought. According to Euclid's definition and how it came about which I discussed in my 2013 essay, first a point cannot have parts, i.e. a boundary part and an inner part and so it cannot also have a shape. Refer here to paragraph 3 in Leibniz Monadology.

3. That young fellow passes, to me, the case he brings against you (and not (YET) against the ancients or the gods). So let's begin with "the Akinbo point"* -- that strange new point on p.5 of your essay. (See continuation at foot.)

In our view, you might have clarified your text by naming and claiming the [though impure per Leibniz] Akinbo point:* For we and Leibniz (via his 1714b, para #2) seem to be as one on this one point of purity: A pure point, having no parts, cannot be extended, shaped or split:- yet (so our thesis goes) it may be forever named and claimed!**

* seeking to eliminate misunderstandings already breeding wildly.

** reserving "the Ojo point" for a proposed gift to the mighty Ojo clan!

Permit my ignorance, if that is the case. Regarding the discussions and controversies generated by Bell's theorem, EPR paradox, etc why is it that the scenario cannot be depicted by Alice and Bob both receiving one of a pair of socks, such that if Alice finds out she has detected the Left sock automatically she can with certainty know that Bob has detected the right sock and vice versa?

If that can be so, why is so much energy, ink and math being dissipated on the subject?

If the scenario cannot be so depicted, what are the experimental or theoretical reasons why it cannot be so described?

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your...

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your answer to this question: Please, Akinbo, given these 10 pristine pairs of socks straight from the maker and routinely packed in pairs by them: Can you distinguish Left from Right? My point being: to show that smaller things may be trickier to assess, catalog and understand than bigger things.

3. Now, while we play as above, my technician has delivered to you the calibrated polariser-analyzer (Alice's D with printer) required for experiment T: a simplified version of experiment C1/2 (see Table A2 in my essay). And, as he told you, the principal-axis of D is initially oriented b and you can freely reorient it to any orientation a (or return it to b) as and when you choose. (To be clear, you are Alice here.)

4. At this point, please note that all my C-based experiments -- see Para. #A4.9 of my essay -- aim to build confidence: for they may be understood via the physics of Etienne-Louis Malus (ca.1812) and of modern undergraduates. NB: The Q-based experiments are wholly quantum. Also note that (unless stated otherwise or in error), my terminology, etc., is always meant to be specified and understood as in my essay.

5. Now, in that I am the inventor, designer and manufacturer of the black-box in this experiment,** I choose to use it on this occasion as follows: every particle sent to you will be U (= Up; signalled to you via a blink of the Ultramarine-coloured light on top of D) in relation to orientation b. Thus your Dandelion-coloured light (signalling D = Down) remains untriggered whenever D is set to b.

6. This latter fact can be checked by switching to b at will (seeking to catch me or my black-box out), and calling for my data (since I test, at b', the twin of every particle that you test). My data will show that, on every occasion, I have D (= Down: as signalled to me (and printed) via a blink of the Dandelion light on top of my D'). Clearly, the binary identifiers U/D are meant to correspond with the binary Left/Right of your original socks.

7. Now, since the particles come to you at the rate of one every second (let me know if that's too fast, etc.), you can now play around and determine the proportion of Dandelion blinks (signalling D-particles) as a function of angle (a,b) when you choose any arbitrary a. Checking against my essay, I trust you'll be surprised by your results. The point here being that you should now better understand Paras. #A4.5 - A4.8 in my essay: and now clearly appreciate the inadequacy of the naive realism associated Bell (who once used Bertlmann's socks in his argumentation) and d'Espagnat when they depart from Bohr's important insight in #A4.5.

8. Since your correlated pair of socks cannot be as you wished, I trust the above provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case. To be clear: though we and our socks live in a quantum world, a pair of wearable socks (no matter how small) does not behave like a pair of correlated particles (bound, as they are, by Bohr's oft-forgotten insight).

9. NB: Whereas the extension of your sock experiment to smaller socks produced difficulties: there are no such difficulties (it is in fact easier) to extend T to Q1/2 as defined in Table A2 of my essay; for we simply remove the black-box. It is the Q-based experiments that give Bellian nonlocality the flick.

10: I conclude: Though controversies generated by Bell's theorem cannot be fully addressed via things like socks, they can be adequately addressed and resolved (consistent with the principles of common-sense local realism) via the very small refinement of sock-like thinking in our Q-based experiments!

* To be clear: I ordered 10 pairs of standard socks for premature neonates.

** That is, the back-boxes are not mere "black-box" reformulations; they can be built.

With my thanks for your interest, and hoping the above helps somewhat; Gordon

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in the tests you define: classical black/white balls, quantum positive/negative charges AND ordinary black/white buttons are isomorphic (= corresponding or similar in form or relations in so far as your specified tests are concerned).

4. I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk with ordinary black/white buttons (or similars; like Left/Right socks). So please do this "classical" test and let us have a report confirming your above conjectures.

5. We now turn to bypassing your incorrect "using spin therefore" statements at your point #2:

5a. Spin is NOT isomorphic to the 3 "classical" classes above.

5b. Spin is a typical quantum property: which is just what we want!

5c. For spin is typically perturbed when a particle interacts with a polariser.

6. Which nicely brings us to that experiment T defined 2 posts above:* with its spin-half particles for comparison with Bell (1964). For there we have a "classical" experiment (in my terms; see essay), with quantum-style perturbations of spin-half particles to boot.

* Alas Akinbo, there is no escaping experiment T; even here where we do your bidding.

7. However, and beautifully, old Malus' Law [as adapted by me to the spin-half particles that we have here; see equations (1)-(2) below] is all you need for complete understanding: remembering that T is NOT the full-monty EPR-Bohm test in Bell (1964) but is a real (executable) non-misleading test for pedagogic purposes.

8. So, BIG HINT, with you being Alice.

P(U|T, Alice) = cos2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (1)

P(D|T, Alice) = sin2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (2)

E(UD|T, Alice) = (1) - (2) = a.b; (3)

since +1 is typically assigned to U, -1 to D.

9. When you are clear on this (it takes a while, but re-reading my essay may help; especially re Bohr's important insight): you will note that we have not used those tricky terms in your point #3; and we invoke no "orientation inconsistencies" per your point #4.

10. Trusting the above moves us, we growing band of CLRs (convinced local realists), to much closer agreement: please do not hesitate to raise any ongoing issues.

With thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns; and with best regards; Gordon

PS: Typos corrected and this added: I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk using equations (1)-(3) to derive E(AB|T) = -a.b.

Essay(AB|CQ) = 1!. This was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on...

Essay(AB|CQ) = 1!. This was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on exactly the same page.

Geometric Algebra is peeking it's head out regarding the beables and their local values.

I have almost decided that the folks who understand things the best are self-taught.

1. Essay (AB|CQ) = 1 was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible.

Please see #4 below as added motivation to check the physics in detail. Please ask questions as the need arises (privately if you wish); no matter how simple or daft.

2. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

I could have done with that improvement at essay-closing time! But the version here is a Draft and v2. has this new working title: "Nature's mathematics settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein." I look forward to the day when we have: GA settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein.

Reason: Reading many of the essays here, I see the need for terms like GA or Nature's mathematics in many places. We need, in my view, the ultimate mathematics for realists: having no irrelevant abstractions and all relevant laws satisfied continuously. See #4 again; noting, of course, that our work with relevant abstractions is just fine for man-made gadgets from submarines, through LHCs and skyscrapers, to rockets.

3. I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on exactly the same page.

Yes, thank you; many times. Alas, at the moment, I suspect we are not in the same library. But I hope that will change; hopefully helped along by work such as yours. Note that Ed's model could not address the simple test proposed by Cristi Stoica (a leading essayist here); nor Aspect's results; and how is Ed's 'realism' defined; etc.

4. Geometric Algebra is peeking its head out regarding the beables and their local values.

I am so glad that you see that! Please be the first to help that shy, beautiful (and sometimes tricky) GA out of the closet and work with her in the unified "BT" context proposed in my essay. For I'd love to see elementary GA taught in primary schools: with GA on its way to becoming Nature's local realistic Mathematics.

5. Re GA.

How is your work received within the GA community? Have you any rejections from journals? If so, what do they say? (Write to me privately if you wish.) Are you familiar with Elio Conte's efforts? For example: Conte, E. (2001). Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics. Bologna, Pitagora Editrice? (Alas, he supports nonlocality!) How about this Caves, Fuchs, Schack essay [arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104088v1.pdf] and the view that amplitudes should be complex numbers rather than reals or quaternions?

With best regards, and looking forward to spending time with your ideas; Gordon

That some serious stuff! :) You're defining new things that I would want to have whole conversations about to really understand. Maybe others could take to it a little easier, but that may be the hardest essay in this contest for me to understand. I did not make it past some of your initial definitions :( ... even though they were all math...

That some serious stuff! :) You're defining new things that I would want to have whole conversations about to really understand. Maybe others could take to it a little easier, but that may be the hardest essay in this contest for me to understand. I did not make it past some of your initial definitions :( ... even though they were all math formulas. But if you are on to something and all your work adds up to a different way to look at the experiments that led Bell to his conclusions... well that would be... WOW!

I think you should do a video explanation/lecture of it all, with some pictures or animations if you think that could help people understand it better. Some verbal explanations and maybe some nice animations as you write down the formulas? (Unless you think some of it cannot or should not be visually imagined ...or the math should not or cannot be interpreted.)

I'm putting your essay on the back burner for a little bit. I hope to come back to it when I have a lot more time to think about it. I hope by that time some other people have helped me to understand it a little more by having conversations with you here.

Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

… all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

… all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

So I hope you'll be back soon with some questions! For I'd welcome the chance to show you that: (i) the maths is little more than high-school stuff; (ii) the defining of new things is little more than my ensuring that all definitions are cleaned-up mathematically.

In this way I'd expect you to find that long conversations might be reserved for areas of common interest; like the benefit of videos/lecture/pictures/animations. Which all sounds more like your department and some near-future co-operation.

To that end, my immediate goal is to invite serious critiques of my work so that it is clear what I must fix/improve. The point being that the four unified experiments do deliver the results that I claim: for all my results are consistent with actual experiments; or consistent with accepted quantum theory where experiments have not yet been done.

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be best discussing this next point with Akinbo Ojo (re the nature of real points and surfaces): "Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface."

For my part, on the same p.2 of your essay, I find:

"All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously."

JOE: Please DO NOT concretely ATTEMPT this next experiment but think about this abstract scenario: In my experience, if you attempt to exit an American freeway incorrectly (eg., say, at night), you will typically see a large sign; typically red: "WRONG WAY: GO BACK!"

However, if you do NOT go back but continue on (here, by thinking about one headlight in each pair), you will soon OBSERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY many distinct headlights coming in your direction THOUGH THEY TRAVEL at different non-constant speeds toward you. Thus, Joe, please: how then am I to understand the quoted statement?

PS: At (almost) the same time that I received your message, I received another with a suggestion. The messages are so similar that I've decided to test a by-line with my FQXi signature (see below).

In my opinion, the byline goes to the heart of your (FQXI 2015) essay (as captured in its title). So I really would welcome your critical comments … and such will be very relevant to my essay this year … in the hope of coming to a new agreement. Thanks Joe.

……………...

"Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling (which can be tricky), but just one grammar, Nature's beautiful concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Watson (2015:5).

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

1. I trust this friendly form of address is still acceptable to you? As it was in 2013? So why not call me Gordon?

2. Please, do I anywhere refer to "abstract nature"? In the opening sentence of my essay you can see: "Ever-truthful (never lying or misleading; which is handy), in accents ranging freely from big bangs to whispers (which can be tricky), Nature counsels us in many ways and sometimes nicely: * …"

3. I trust it is therefore clear that my definition of Nature is as one with that commonly accepted: "In the broadest sense, Nature is equivalent to the natural, physical, material or concrete world or universe. Thus "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. The study of Nature is a large part of science."

4. NB: Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often taken to be a separate category from other natural phenomena. Therefore please note that I specifically exclude human activity via this qualifier: Nature (ever-truthful; never lying or misleading; which is handy).

5. I trust this makes my position clear. So, please, to help me understand your position clearly: Please answer the question (3 posts ABOVE) about oncoming cars and their headlights at night. For I'd like to see how far we can progress beyond our agreement (as I see it): That we must carefully distinguish between concrete and abstract objects.

* Like when, as a child: I planted one seed and Nature delivered 10 large melons and 423 new seeds; or when I explored the underground drains of our town and a rain squall flushed me safely out!

Welcoming your comment, I returned to your Essay, thinking that I had missed your reference to, or discussion of "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth".

I found the word "Truth" in the title of your essay, but nowhere else: thus I found no combination "Universal Truth".

So, if you would clarify MY "deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth," I would be very happy to respond. For I continue to maintain that my essay represents a true picture of four important experiments and thus: the true connection between the mathematics and the physics therein.

Sincerely; Gordon

Sujatha Jagannathan replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 16:32 GMT

As far as you did not understand the meaning of "Universal Truth" you will "deviate from the definitive questions and my paper as well."

You are deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth. (MSJ)

So I'll be pleased to defend my essay as soon as you (i) clarify for me these exact definitive questions of Universal Truth, or (ii) rephrase your objection so that it makes sense to me.

B: In relation to the comments on your Essay-Forum, you introduced the truism: … everything is not possible to explain in this comment box. But these comment boxes are surely large enough for you to provide at least one of the "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth" that you say my essay does not address. Further, if you need additional space, simply open another comment box!

PS: Since the four experiments that I analyse yield truths, such will not conflict with any Truth that you care to offer. And since my essay is essentially written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic (given that I will happily answer, at that level, any technical questions), why not pinpoint an error in my work and link it to one of those exact definitive questions of Universal Truth of yours? In this way we might both learn something.

PS: Harry, I recall that one of your many essays refutes Einstein's theory of relativity on 12 grounds (based on maths, physics, philosophy and experiments). Alas, as you've seen, the essence of 'my joke' is that it is not so easily refuted.

Thanks again; Gordon

En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 14:43 GMT

Gordon,

While reading your essay, I found a piece of unused space (white space). It is at the bottom of page 5, right under section 3.6. Surely you could have mercifully inserted a few words of plain English in there – even if you had to wedge it in edgewise. It would provide a much needed respite among the hieroglyphics (admittedly, section 3.6 already provides a few seconds to catch one’s breath).

Well, that is my take on it. And yeah, we likely agree on “Universal Truth” (you would probably say that “that’s not even a proposition”).

My rating will exceed what you have “enjoyed” from the readers so far, but it could have been higher. Please have mercy and consider the reader.

Thanks for your comments and the spirit in which they are offered. Those 11 pages of unused white-space in your own essay would certainly have come in handy! Nevertheless, I thought my limited use of white-space was justified given that: (i) My essay had to begin with precise definitions of its terms and symbols. (ii) It is expansively written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic. (iii) With its heavy mathematical content, it's meant to be read critically!

Moreover, my theory was not developed for fun. Rather, it arose in response to widely-recognized difficulties associated with John Bell and "nonlocality". Further, it is not without some signs of progress: for we now find many Bellians (and prior avoiders) back-peddling from their earlier positions.

En, given the similarity of our conclusions and the rarity of such challenges* to Wigner's position, I'd welcome any deeper and more critical analysis of my work.

* For easy comparison, here's a conclusion from my essay (p.5; the piece that you cite):

3.6. We therefore close with a happy snapshot of Wigner’s (1960:14) views and our own:

… “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

… Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to whispers [like the whisper of an apple falling], but just one grammar, beautiful mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws.

Here's yours: "There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

There is no mystery. [...] inserted for clarity. Thanks again; Gordon

En Passant replied on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 02:48 GMT

Gordon,

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn’t anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren’t capable of following your logic. It’s just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort...

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn’t anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren’t capable of following your logic. It’s just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort necessary to follow your arguments is greater (in some sort of subjective valuation system) than the expected benefit. Most people (as you well know) have already accepted the tenets of QM, and are prejudiced against views that challenge “the establishment.”

In other words, most people expect your logic to have a failing somewhere, and even if it didn’t, they believe that the conclusions would not be somehow valid or substantive enough to truly challenge accepted interpretations of QM.

I am used to thinking in English, simultaneously accompanied by a visual imagery of the thing under consideration (they happen seamlessly together). I don’t recognize a single “symbol” in your essay. For me to learn those symbols would take too long (the way such things work is that if you work with symbols for some years, your mind fluidly treats them as meaningful language), and since I don’t expect to be doing this kind of thinking in the future, it would not be an optimal use of my time.

Because of my jobs in finance, I had to become proficient in MS Excel, and I will admit to being able to “program” logical statements that run into thousands of characters and still be able to “keep the logic” in my conscious working memory (so to speak). Over time, Lotus 123 and MS Excel varied their capability of handling formulas of certain lengths, as well as the number of nested “if” statements, so sometimes it had to be broken up into several cells that (in combination) resulted in the formula I needed. But this does not guarantee that I could do what you do with your symbols. I think you have a unique gift.

But your problem is that you aren’t getting the right people to spend the time learning to understand the logic of your arguments. Worse still, because of that, they do not realize the consequences (or, rather, they prefer to not acknowledge them). If you want to make a difference (and not just have a chat), then you need to get your work reviewed by the right people. It won’t be easy. They have jobs, reputations, funding, and peers to consider.

Thanks En; some good points, and much appreciated. But this one is strange: I don’t recognize a single “symbol” in your essay.

Please, En: Probability P is defined in Table A3 of my essay. Surely, in top-level Finance, P is in play every day?

PS: To be clear, the concrete and abstract elements of the unified experiment (particles, detectors, etc) are given in Table A1.

Gordon

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 01:40 GMT

En, in your forum you say: "Since this is about your essay, I will transfer it to your page." Alas, it's not clear where you wanted these next matters discussed so I brought them here (with some minor edits).

EP: "In the meantime, if you have time and the inclination, you can look up two comments that I have made on other people’s pages. They will give you a strong indication of the reasons that motivate my essay, and (potentially) provide philosophical “grounding” for all realist views."

GW: As "well-grounded realists" we appear to be in close agreement.

EP: "One is on Peter Martin Punin’s page, so if you go there, look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 04:55 GMT."

GW: Our agreement continues!

EP: "The second one is on Marc Séguin’s page. You should look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT. I intend to continue the discussion (which did not end with Marc alleging that we both make comparable assumptions, but I let him off the hook) on Punin’s page. His position, being Platonist, subsumes the MUH. Being an engineer, you should like my comment on Marc Séguin’s page, as it involves a bicycle chain analogy. That’s all I will say on my page."

GW: Close agreement continues BUT big difference re your pocket calculator analogy! As in all of the whole real big wide world, maths is running under every bonnet and bang and banana-skin. In the pocket calculator case, the battery runs flat due to the calculator's maths (ie, Nature's maths)* and that "streaming electricity" of yours!

* In your terms, given your work in Finance, let's call it Nature's accounting: which brings me to back my essay! (And ditto that bike.)

Yes, I have some familiarity with probability. But I was never happy with it. The probability of a single event is either 0% or 100% (it will either happen, or it will not). Only if you apply it to a sequence of events will it make sense.

You overestimate the use of probability in business. You never have sufficient information to make decisions based on facts. CEOs use subjective judgment to make big business decisions. There is so much incredible amount of “hit and miss,” (accompanied by waste) that it would make an engineer’s skin crawl. The only reason why this is not clearly visible is because the other guys (managers of other businesses) aren’t any better at this.

I just saw your comment from the 21st. I will disagree about your calculator comment. It just follows a physics “logic,” and doesn’t give a damn about mathematics. You may think in terms of mathematics, but it is all physics.

But I don’t want to “quibble” about technical things. We agree that the universe is deterministic. How else could it be (random)? I would hate to see what would happen to us if that were the case.

I skimmed your paper with great interest, happy to see local realism defended (I think) in such a technical way. I say "I think" because my brain has no capacity to go through all the impressive-looking logical equations and statements you have used to buttress your conclusions. In this contest Edwin Klingman shows how Bell made a basic mistake in his Theorem. In my essay I argue that local causal discrete realism prevails at the micro structure of the Universe where physics and mathematics essentially coalesce into the smallest most basic building blocks of everything. I base these ideas on my Beautiful Universe Theory - I value your feedback.

And, Yes: I defend local realism in a technical but very elementary way. Further, from reading your essays, I'm sure that your brain is quite capable of understanding my "logical equations and statements" for they involve little more than high-school maths and logic.

Moreover, if you want to study my work in detail, I am happy to hold your hand and answer any questions. In this way we might see the extent to which your beautiful graphics could be applied to important local-realistic results which are proven experimentally and/or consistent with accepted quantum formalisms: though my work refutes any claims or interpretations invoking nonlocality in Bell-test experiments.

As for your essay in your link above: I've sent you some personal comments on your notation there. I'll comment further on your current essay on your forum. It is clear that your work is beautifully presented and much more adventurous than my own.

PS: Regarding Ed Klingman's work, I am satisfied that it is nonsense! Apart from my own analysis (some of it lodged in his forum), you will see that he cannot address Cristi Stoica's elementary challenge (Cristi being a highly-ranked essayist here). Further, under David Mermin's well-known examples of Bell-tests with Red and Green lights, Aspect's experiments are essentially isomorphic to Bell (1964), etc. Yet, again, Ed has no answer!

"On one supposition we absolutely hold fast; that of local/Einstein causality: 'The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,' after Einstein (1949:85)"

What people don’t realise is that the problem with local-realism is...

"On one supposition we absolutely hold fast; that of local/Einstein causality: 'The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,' after Einstein (1949:85)"

What people don’t realise is that the problem with local-realism is due to insisting on the “realism” of counterfactuals. Which by definition are things which might have happened but didn't. Might have been real, but weren't realised.

You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the “real factual situation”. What people call “realism” is actually idealism. The realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don’t have to be there. Hidden variables. They’re not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions! The wave function itself was the first hidden variable of hidden variables theory. It's there in the mathematics. You can hide it in various ways, or express it in different terms (density matrix, geometric algebra, ...). But why do people want it to be there in reality as well as among the symbols we write on paper and manipulate algebraically?

Of course, quantum physics is consistent with locality: it is a sensible theory. It passes the first sanity test: It predicts that the real factual situation of S2 is independent of what is done with system S1.

This sanity test has been expressed in a much stronger form than was often done in the past in a wonderful but difficult paper by Pawlowski et al (Nature, 2009)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08400.html

You can find a "free" version of this paper on arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292

The authors introduce the principle of information causality, which roughly speaking says that if Alice sends n bits of information to Bob, and Bob and Alice are at the same time doing measurements on stuff in their labs, then Bob only gains at most n bits of information which he didn't already have at his place. The case n = 0 is "no action at a distance". They show that information causality implies the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2 (this is the bound which QM can attain, higher than the local realism bound of 2 of the CHSH inequality).

Thus QM passes the sanity test with flying colours. In fact, among all sane theories, it allows the strongest possible pattern of correlations of measurements done at distant places.

In relation to my essay, I'd like to be clear about this sweeping comment of yours; my edits shown thus [.]:

"You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the “real factual situation”. What [some] people call “realism” is actually idealism. The [foolish] realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don’t have to be there. Hidden variables. They’re not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions!"

We agree. For I specifically define realism in terms of beables (things which exist, after Bell). Thus, from my essay, per paragraph 2.1.

"Taking care with analysis to ensure that no step here is negated by experiment, our approach – per Appendix A – is based on commonsense local realism (CLR).

Taking care with Nature, we hold a consequence of realism to be: ‘at all times, the set of beables possessed by a system fully determines all relevant probabilities,’ after Gisin (2014)."

So (in the quantum experiments Q1/2 and Q1 in my essay), λ and λ' -- correlated by the conservation of total angular momentum -- are termed "hidden beables"in that they cannot be known by us!

Bell (1976) suggested the term uncontrolled instead of "hidden" in that they cannot be manipulated at will by us. Either way, to be very clear: I certainly have neither use nor call for mathematical fictions.

With my thanks again; Gordon

Richard Gill replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 11:31 GMT

I cannot follow your math, Gordon.

Akinbo Ojo wrote as a kick-off "As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech."

Mathematics is not a flow of symbols. Sure: formulas are pictures and a picture speaks a thousand words. Formulas represent ideas. Formulas and speech should blend together, each supporting the other. Dirichlet pointed out that the essence of mathematics is to replace computations by ideas.

In computer programming, there is such a thing as "literate programming" which means writing your code in such a way that a human can understand what is going on, as well as the computer. A famous mathematician explained how to give a good talk: imagine you are going for a walk in the forest with a friend. I suppose that just occasionally, you might write some symbols in the dirt with a stick. I am trying in friendly words to say that I think that "this essay is not an essay".

Many thanks Richard! Using the convention that (1) refers to equation (1) in my essay, etc., my preliminary response follows:

1. Given that my work is found in an essay contest, let's agree that it's an essay (of some sort).

2. Given your problem with my math, let's agree that it's an essay in need of an editor.

3. Given my respect for your tenacity in matters Bellian, let's see if I can develop as that editor. And let this be the end in view: the essay is either improved in its next incarnation or it's withdrawn!

4. Let the apprentice begin by re-titling the essay:

Commonsense local realism settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein

where commonsense local realism (CLR) is carefully defined in the essay.

5. Given Appendix A, you are aware of the concrete and abstract models in Table A1; etc.

6. Given no math in Appendix A, we come to your difficulties in Section 1: Truth.

7. Therein (1)-(10) are presented as revealed truths; ie, truths revealed by Nature when interrogated correctly. Further, since they are presented as universal truths, they are represented in the language of mathematics, devoid of any native tongues.

8. Given that you understand an Expectation in QM, and that such are conditioned by the experiment under consideration, you will understand LHS(1) = (2).

9. Thus, sandwiched between LHS(1) and (2), we find RHS(1) named from the left and defined from the right.

10. The symbols in RHS(1) are then defined in (3)-(4). How then do you understand (3)-(4)?

Hoping this helps us along the way -- towards that end -- with my thanks again; Gordon

Reading your essay and the above comments it's clear to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we we currently approach and analyse 'nature', or rather 'describe the evolution of the universe'.

Your essay is hopelessly out of place and lacking in application of scores, only 9 in total averaging 5. It's clear identification of one of the most confounding...

Reading your essay and the above comments it's clear to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we we currently approach and analyse 'nature', or rather 'describe the evolution of the universe'.

Your essay is hopelessly out of place and lacking in application of scores, only 9 in total averaging 5. It's clear identification of one of the most confounding pieces of poor application of mathematical logic in physics should certainly put it in the top group and amongst the most well read.

Our essays argue essentially the same very important point, if from very different 'aspects' (lol). I don't think we need to discuss the clear veracity of that truth, just perhaps how it can best be communicated. To that extent I have to admit I agree with Richard above that just the mathematical analysis is inadequate, as is just the physical mechanism. I identified your work to QM Prof Pheonix and he had a similar response to Richard. If the problem lies in the receiver, then the signal method needs improvement. As none of us can be genius at multiple disciplines I still believe that the future of advancement in understanding best lies in collaboration.

Your essay gets a top score from me even if it is 'overloaded with symbols' because the (though curtailed and limited) descriptions are correct, meaningful and understandable. I do hope it get's into the finalists, but fear it may not due to that narrow aspect. I'm now more than certain that we must combine an intuitive physical mechanism with the conclusive correct maths.

I'd hoped you'd have read my essay, but if not please do, also my recent paper expanding on the mechanism and identifying the same flaws in Bells analysis as you (and Bell's quotes showing he knew they must exist!) The analysis directly addresses and resolves those key matters that you correctly identify nobody else does (but lacking the maths so with the same issue as yours!) I hope we can then stay in touch.

Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can...

Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can maximise the benefits of the above serendipity. Especially as Richard is widely read and published in matters Bellian.

I have not read you essay; you are fifth on my current FQXi to-do list and I will get there before the deadline!

However, as you will recall, the depth of your analyses leaves mine looking very superficial. Though I take hope from this one fact: we are both conscientious local realists (CLRs).

PS: I need to write up a small but serious difference of opinion with fellow CLR Alan Kadin and his Figure 4. Have you looked at it? Any opinion? (It's a promising essay and it reminds me of some of your ideas.)

Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my...

Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my paper track the full mechanism. But we must be very careful as there are many different set ups.

It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced...

It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced below.;

Gordon,

I don't see my derivation as 'the full monty', just the minimum required to reproduce the findings termed quantum non-locality (QNL) without abandoning local reality. I don't quite understand what it is you 'have to offer' beyond that simple need to circumvent the Bell constraint. What else is needed? Can you elucidate?

Once that tough nut was cracked, sure a whole lot of other solutions to anomalies came flooding out. They're mainly just verification, though ok, many are also important in themselves, and yes, far too much flooded out for most human brains to assimilate, but noe of thet detracts from the accomplishment of the simple task rationalising QM and QNL.

I do agree we've approached from opposite aspects, but I think that'd be useful as the problem can't 'get away' and both together have 3 times the value. I'm used to working with top teams to accomplish complex projects individuals can't, but if you don't think you could collaborate that's fine. I'm sure someone will. but I hope you'll stay in touch.

I will not argue with any of your assertions. I am after much bigger fish. I have a firm belief that what is standing in the way of progress in today’s physics is “entanglement.”

If there ever existed a more preposterous idea in the history of science, I would like to hear about it. It even leads to billions spent on QC (whose “speed-up” is contingent on the concept of entanglement).

“Entanglement” is the number one problem in physics today. I could not have said it any more plainly. Just think what all would have to change if the concept of “entanglement” were to be abandoned.

I also don’t like strong AI. If that were possible, we could lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. Think of it like this. Regardless of the means, how could it be possible to make something think better than you can? It is utterly preposterous.

I will make you an offer. You present me with a business problem you are facing, and I will propose a solution. I don’t want any compensation (nor any recognition – I want to remain anonymous). I will sign a non-disclosure if that bothers you.

Not to be condescending, but I have met many Managing Directors. They were Directors, but hardly (or, better said, barely) managing. That may not apply to yourself, so don’t take it personally. In my experience, only 1% of all managers were good at their jobs. Incompetence reigns. At all levels.